Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[Calm]

It does not say that when we build our lives on the prophets words we are building on an eternally sure foundation.

 

I disagree that is what she is saying, instead she is saying heeding the prophets' words will lead us to build upon the rock of Christ, not that we are to build on the words themselves.

 

The prophets' words are the blueprints for building of the foundation, our relationship with Christ, the foundation.

[janderich]

I disagree that is what she is saying, instead she is saying heeding the prophets' words will lead us to build upon the rock of Christ, not that we are to build on the words themselves.

 

The prophets' words are the blueprints for building of the foundation, our relationship with Christ, the foundation.

I agree that the prophets words are the blueprints for a foundation built on Christ. But I would suggest that your interpretation of her words are nowhere supported in her talk. In fact she states quite emphatically that we need to follow the prophetic word even when it may seem unreasonable.

We heed prophetic word even when it may seem unreasonable, inconvenient, and uncomfortable. According to the world’s standards, following the prophet may be unpopular, politically incorrect, or socially unacceptable. But following the prophet is always right.

 Moreover note the word she highlights in the below scripture: 

Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

Of course this scripture acknowledges that we should give head to the prophets words as he receives them from the Lord, but her emphasis is not on this, but rather on the fact that we should give heed unto "all" his words. At the end of the day, even if your interpretation of her talk is correct, the take away for people not so discriminating is to heed all the prophets words even when they seem unreasonable.

Edited November 1, 2014 by janderich

[canard78]

I agree that the prophets words are the blueprints for a foundation built on Christ. But I would suggest that your interpretation of her words are nowhere supported in her talk. In fact she states quite emphatically that we need to follow the prophetic word even when it may seem unreasonable.

Moreover note the word she highlights in the below scripture:

Of course this scripture acknowledges that we should give head to the prophets words as he receives them from the Lord, but her emphasis is not on this, but rather on the fact that we should give heed unto "all" his words. At the end of the day, even if your interpretation of her talk is correct, the take away for people not so discriminating is to heed all the prophets words even when they seem unreasonable.

A prophet sees through the same dark glass as the rest of us, so the idea that their words are "as if from mine own mouth" doesn't work for me. There are too many instances where a prophet is claiming to be acting as a prophet and yet seems not to be.

[CV75]

Compare the following:

I have, which is why i said: "Just because things change, or even get disavowed, does not make either the former or the latter state false. I think the important thing is to follow the living prophets in the right spirit. They tend not to condemn their predecessors when they make changes ...I think it is the Christlike thing to do (for example, He fulfilled the law of Moses and changed it into the Gospel without condemning it).

 

"Assuming something that has changed simply because it was false offers no added value toward discovering truth--for example, if the Mosaic Law is perceived to have been "false," the virtue in its fulfillment gets devalued and the full truth in Christ may be overlooked."

 

The teachings of the prophets may change over time, but that does not make them false. The basis for concluding a former or modern teaching is false has to be based on other criteria. Nothing the prophets teach can lead anyone away from Christ, especially in the long run.

[CV75]

Now tell the leaders today that you agree with Brigham Young on Adam-God and that God is progressing in knowledge.

Why would I?

[Pahoran]

Let's start with:

"Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.

Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?"

I consider this to be a teaching that leads Mormons astray. It encourages an attitude of superiority and pride. It teaches that the Mormon view of God is better and lumps all other beliefs into a patronising dismissal. It shows very little respect for the devoted millions of people who follow a belief and practice that is far from a "village love in." Frankly, I find it offensive and believe it to be based on his personal opinion. I don't see any inspiration in those two paragraphs.

 

 

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us.  Even though it shows a clear attitude of superiority and pride, I'm not offended.

 

But I do have to say that I don't see any inspiration in it.

 

At all.

 

Elder Holland, like all of the Lord's anointed prophets, is at all times better than his critics.

Regards,

Pahoran

[canard78]

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us. Even though it shows a clear attitude of superiority and pride, I'm not offended.

But I do have to say that I don't see any inspiration in it.

At all.

Elder Holland, like all of the Lord's anointed prophets, is at all times better than his critics.

Regards,

Pahoran

The process I've gone through to reach my conclusions are no different to yours. I've listened, pondered, prayed and then reached a conclusion.

You have no way of knowing the feelings and experiences I've had so you have no substance to support your conclusion that there was no inspiration. All you have is assumptions.

[JLHPROF]

Why would I?

You said that just because a doctrine changes doesn't make the old or new beliefs false. Then why are we prohibited from believing Adam-God or a progressing God as heresies?

[canard78]

I have, which is why i said: "Just because things change, or even get disavowed, does not make either the former or the latter state false. I think the important thing is to follow the living prophets in the right spirit. They tend not to condemn their predecessors when they make changes ...I think it is the Christlike thing to do (for example, He fulfilled the law of Moses and changed it into the Gospel without condemning it).

"Assuming something that has changed simply because it was false offers no added value toward discovering truth--for example, if the Mosaic Law is perceived to have been "false," the virtue in its fulfillment gets devalued and the full truth in Christ may be overlooked."

The teachings of the prophets may change over time, but that does not make them false. The basis for concluding a former or modern teaching is false has to be based on other criteria. Nothing the prophets teach can lead anyone away from Christ, especially in the long run.

That's some confusing logic. Being polite and respectful about someone being wrong doesn't stop them being wrong.

Something can be called false without that being rude or insulting. Saying something is false is simply saying it is untrue or incorrect.

So is black skin a sign of a curse or is it not? Whichever you say, it is, effectively, saying that what at least one prophet has said is false.

[Pahoran]

The process I've gone through to reach my conclusions are no different to yours. I've listened, pondered, prayed and then reached a conclusion.

You have no way of knowing the feelings and experiences I've had so you have no substance to support your conclusion that there was no inspiration. All you have is assumptions.

 

Which is all you have to go on when you declare that you see no inspiration in an Apostle's counsel.

 

Do you really imagine that your musings should be considered sacrosanct while an Apostle's teaching to the whole Church is fair game?

 

Just how important do you really imagine yourself to be?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[CV75]

You said that just because a doctrine changes doesn't make the old or new beliefs false. Then why are we prohibited from believing Adam-God or a progressing God as heresies?

I'm not so sure anyone is prohibited from believing anything. More importantly, I'm not so sure anyone is condemned or damned for what he believes, and that (or condemnation) would be the only measure of being misled, led astray, or false, or not true and faithful. We are condemned by acting, or how we act, on our beliefs, in relation to the standard of holiness the Lord has set for us through His covenants.

[CV75]

So is black skin a sign of a curse or is it not?

It really depends on what is meant and understood.

[JLHPROF]

I'm not so sure anyone is prohibited from believing anything. More importantly, I'm not so sure anyone is condemned or damned for what he believes, and that (or condemnation) would be the only measure of being misled, led astray, or false, or not true and faithful. We are condemned by acting, or how we act, on our beliefs, in relation to the standard of holiness the Lord has set for us through His covenants.

 

Publicly professing in Church that you believe the Adam-God doctrine to be true can be grounds for a disciplinary court.  It isn't always but it has been.

If you try to teach it, well, on your own head .  But even believing this "heresy" can get you excommunicated on occasion. 

[canard78]

Which is all you have to go on when you declare that you see no inspiration in an Apostle's counsel.

Do you really imagine that your musings should be considered sacrosanct while an Apostle's teaching to the whole Church is fair game?

Just how important do you really imagine yourself to be?

Regards,

Pahoran

Where have I asked for my musings to be sacrosanct? The question has been asked whether there are times when the counsel of one the church leaders is not something we support or consider to be divine.

If you can't bear to discuss that topic then move on. You seem more intent on throwing insults than actually discussing the issue.

What Elder Holland said is demonstrably wrong. It's not only the intangible feelings that lead me to that conclusion but also study and reason.

If you can defend his statement that "if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds."

That's a sweeping, all-encompassing statement. Can you show that this statement is, in all cases, accurate? Or has he made a sweeping generalisation that doesn't actually apply to lots and lots of dedicated religious people.

Do more than sling mud and actually engage in the conversation.

[canard78]

It really depends on what is meant and understood.

Go on, expand on it. If you're going to defend both statements as being true (neither being false), you're going to need to be a bit more detailed than "it depends."

[canard78]

The two statements are virtually identical in tone, though separated by a couple of generations in vernacular. Both are saying, quite correctly, that, in Lewis's terms, the conception of a senile grandfather-in-heaven who doesn't care what the young folks do so long as they are having a good time needs correcting. And in this, I see Elder Holland as speaking the truth in love, not being divisive.

And he is certainly not a shepherd leading sheep astray. That is a pernicious falsehood.

Firstly, saying "we" vs "they" has significant implications for how the message is conveyed. "They" is always going to be more divisive than "we."

Secondly, I don't defend Lewis as someone who can "never lead astray." There will be things said by Lewis that I also disagree with. Probably there are things you do too.

So to say that Elder Holland hasn't lead people astray because his sentiments generally match those of C.S. Lewis doesn't impact whether what Elder Holland said is right or wrong. Lewis isn't the benchmark of LDS truth. He's not considered a prophet so to say that what Elder Holland said is ok because Lewis said it too doesn't really support anything at all.

Edited November 2, 2014 by canard78

[Storm Rider]

Let's start with:

"Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.

Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?"

I consider this to be a teaching that leads Mormons astray. It encourages an attitude of superiority and pride. It teaches that the Mormon view of God is better and lumps all other beliefs into a patronising dismissal. It shows very little respect for the devoted millions of people who follow a belief and practice that is far from a "village love in." Frankly, I find it offensive and believe it to be based on his personal opinion. I don't see any inspiration in those two paragraphs.

In practice a mixed race couple can be sealed in the temple. There are still references on LDS.org discouraging this. There is a 1947 letter from the first presidency saying mixed race marriage is "repugnant" and "against God's doctrine." The 2013 Race and the Priesthood essay disavows this doctrine, though they are unattributed.

I agree with the 2013 essay, I don't agree with the older policy of teaching that mixed race marriage was a sin. I believe that view is man-made and not of God.

One could. One would be trying to dodge the important difference between "God's doctrine" and "man's practice." Do you really see no difference?

Perhaps. But someone might have said the same to a member 60-70 years ago if a member dismissed the church's teaching on inter-racial marriage. I hope I would have been on the side of reason and inclusiveness and not on the side of prejudice.

Leaders have stood by past principles which today have been disavowed. Who's to say that in another 100 years the beliefs you hold so dear won't be another embarrassing footnote in Mormon History?

 

 

You seem to have built a mountain out of a molehill. Reading on Patheos recently there is an article entitled, As Hispanics Depart:  Does Catholicism Ask Too little of Us?  This article juxtaposes how those who think the Catholic Church should ask less of its people versus the reality that Hispanics are converting to Islam and Mormonism, which are perceived as demanding more of us.  

 

Religion, most religion, regardless of it being Christianity or not does demand little of its members.  Sin is relegated to a distant pew in the far back reaches of the minds of members because after all, "God is love" and sin has no meaning when God is love.  Everyone wears rose colored glasses, sings Kumbaya, and all is well.  

 

I really don't understand your point other than you have some rant on Holland.  Tell me where all the churches are that demand so much of their members.  Hell-bells, all Evangelicals need to walk the isle and they are saved regardless of their actions they have it made.  There is no need for morals....other than love and that is not really explained.  Love is that infantile squishy feeling, but it is not the mature love that demands what is good for you, what is best for you.  

 

I suspect we can find other articles that echo the same sentiment of Elder Holland's talk.  

 

You have another bit a soapbox about believing everything a leader says.  When have you not heard that we should not pray about what they say?  I can report what a leader says and remain opposed if I have no witness.  Recentism is not a valid filter to condemn the peoples and leaders of yesterday.  If you think you would have had issues with the dating standards of 70 years ago, I promise you that you would have had a problem with those of 2,000 years ago.  

[sunstoned]

You're entitled to your opinion, but Doctrine & Covenants 84:54-58 doesn't put the Saints under condemnation for their neglect of the Bible.  Their neglect of the Book of Mormon, on the other hand ...

And we wonder why people don't think we are christian.

[teddyaware]

A prophet sees through the same dark glass as the rest of us, so the idea that their words are "as if from mine own mouth" doesn't work for me. There are too many instances where a prophet is claiming to be acting as a prophet and yet seems not to be.

I have read your comments on this thread with interest, but rather than respond to your line of reasoning with my own words, I'll let Nephi of old speak for me because his words perfectly encapsulate my own thoughts and feelings...

3 And all the nations that fight against Zion, and that distress her, shall be as a dream of a night vision; yea, it shall be unto them, even as unto a hungry man which dreameth, and behold he eateth but he awaketh and his soul is empty; or like unto a thirsty man which dreameth, and behold he drinketh but he awaketh and behold he is faint, and his soul hath appetite; yea, even so shall the multitude of all the nations be that fight against Mount Zion.

4 For behold, all ye that doeth iniquity, stay yourselves and wonder, for ye shall cry out, and cry; yea, ye shall be drunken but not with wine, ye shall stagger but not with strong drink.

5 For behold, the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep. For behold, ye have closed your eyes, and ye have rejected the prophets; and your rulers, and the seers hath he covered because of your iniquity. (2 Nephi 27)

[canard78]

I have read your comments on this thread with interest, but rather than respond to your line of reasoning with my own words, I'll let Nephi of old speak for me because his words perfectly encapsulate my own thoughts and feelings...

3 And all the nations that fight against Zion, and that distress her, shall be as a dream of a night vision; yea, it shall be unto them, even as unto a hungry man which dreameth, and behold he eateth but he awaketh and his soul is empty; or like unto a thirsty man which dreameth, and behold he drinketh but he awaketh and behold he is faint, and his soul hath appetite; yea, even so shall the multitude of all the nations be that fight against Mount Zion.

4 For behold, all ye that doeth iniquity, stay yourselves and wonder, for ye shall cry out, and cry; yea, ye shall be drunken but not with wine, ye shall stagger but not with strong drink.

5 For behold, the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep. For behold, ye have closed your eyes, and ye have rejected the prophets; and your rulers, and the seers hath he covered because of your iniquity. (2 Nephi 27)

Other than scripturally based personal slurs do you have anything to actually contribute to the discussion?

[canard78]

You seem to have built a mountain out of a molehill.

The same could be said of the reaction from the rest of you to me picking one current talk I don't agree with.

Reading on Patheos recently there is an article entitled, As Hispanics Depart: Does Catholicism Ask Too little of Us? This article juxtaposes how those who think the Catholic Church should ask less of its people versus the reality that Hispanics are converting to Islam and Mormonism, which are perceived as demanding more of us.

Religion, most religion, regardless of it being Christianity or not does demand little of its members. Sin is relegated to a distant pew in the far back reaches of the minds of members because after all, "God is love" and sin has no meaning when God is love. Everyone wears rose colored glasses, sings Kumbaya, and all is well.

"Most" religion? "Everyone..."

Given Elder Holland's talk supports you in this view it illustrates why that teaching is bad counsel.

I really don't understand your point other than you have some rant on Holland. Tell me where all the churches are that demand so much of their members. Hell-bells, all Evangelicals need to walk the isle and they are saved regardless of their actions they have it made. There is no need for morals....other than love and that is not really explained. Love is that infantile squishy feeling, but it is not the mature love that demands what is good for you, what is best for you.

I suspect we can find other articles that echo the same sentiment of Elder Holland's talk.

Of course you can find more. Given there are lots of people (including non-Mormons) who share yours and Elder Holland's sentiment.

Mormonism is a high-demand religion, there's no doubt about that. But that doesn't make all other religions low demand.

There are nearly 8mn Jehovah's Witnesses. You can't call that a "kumbaya" religion. What about the 1.6bn Muslims?

I could go on. Certainly there are religions with less "works-based" requirements than Mormonism, but that doesn't make their belief in God an easy belief.

By the way, thanks for actually engaging the topic rather than simply attacking me as others have.

You have another bit a soapbox about believing everything a leader says. When have you not heard that we should not pray about what they say?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people can and should pray about what their leaders say. In doing so it should be expected and acceptable that some people prayerfully disagree with what an LDS leader says.

The problem I have is that some people here seem to think that the only reasonable answer should be agreement.

I can report what a leader says and remain opposed if I have no witness. Recentism is not a valid filter to condemn the peoples and leaders of yesterday. If you think you would have had issues with the dating standards of 70 years ago, I promise you that you would have had a problem with those of 2,000 years ago.

Dating standards? I don't think I've said anything about dating standards.

[CV75]

Publicly professing in Church that you believe the Adam-God doctrine to be true can be grounds for a disciplinary court.  It isn't always but it has been.

If you try to teach it, well, on your own head .  But even believing this "heresy" can get you excommunicated on occasion. 

As you pointed out, believing and acting are two different things, and how the acting gets done adds another dimension. I don't know anyone who has been excommunicated simply for what he believes; there is a lot more to it than that.

[CV75]

Go on, expand on it. If you're going to defend both statements as being true (neither being false), you're going to need to be a bit more detailed than "it depends."

I'm not defending either or both statements as being true (or false); either can be argued either way.

 

You observed how we treat people in relation to how we view them or what we believe about them or their beliefs and theories -- that is key (treating people as Christ does). The "Race and Priesthood" article handles this well in its treatment of past prophets and others, as well as how it treats the current leadership and readers of the article. That is a reflection of our leadership's attitude toward others and the Spirit of Christ. 

 

I know people who joined the Church before 1978 who were deeply offended by the priesthood ban and by how some of the saints explained it and sometimes acted about it. Yet in their prayers they received a higher guidance and conviction that joining the Church was the right thing to do, and remained true and faithful, some for many decades now. They were not led astray, and they were not false. They followed our leaders' counsel and example. None of them were told by the Spirit that the ban was false, and none of them were given any particular revelation about the practice and teachings. Typically the were given the reassurance to proceed in faith, that Christ would cover for them, and to keep their trust in Him and the Restored Gospel.

 

I think that is a good approach to take for this and any doctrine that one takes exception to; to go by the confirmation he has received to make and keep the covenants through faith in Christ, first and foremost, and treat people kindly in thought, word and deed. Mosiah 4 pretty much covers this approach. We are exhorted to believe in Christ, repentance and obedience (verses 2, 9, 10), and to watch out for sinful thoughts, words and deeds (verses 29, 30). This is the antidote for yielding to the temptation to condemn or harangue others for their beliefs.

[canard78]

I'm not defending either or both statements as being true (or false); either can be argued either way.

Can either be really argued either way?

Please show the arguments for and against this statement:

"Black skin is not a sign of disfavour or a sign of a curse."

I can easily think of arguments in favour of that being true. Can you really support arguments for that not being true?

How about these two statements:

1949: The position of Black people should be understood in the context of the doctrine that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has a determining effect on the conditions and circumstances of mortality

2013: Black skin does not reflect actions in a premortal life

While I agree that someone could argue either for or against the "curse" or "premortal" statements in 1949 OR in 2013.

I don't see how you could argue that BOTH the 1949 statement AND the 2013 statement being true.

If you can I'd be impressed to see how you manage that.

You observed how we treat people in relation to how we view them or what we believe about them or their beliefs and theories -- that is key (treating people as Christ does). The "Race and Priesthood" article handles this well in its treatment of past prophets and others, as well as how it treats the current leadership and readers of the article. That is a reflection of our leadership's attitude toward others and the Spirit of Christ.

You're talking about something entirely different. However polite and considerate they are in their 2013 language, it doesn't change the fact that the implication of their statement is that 1949 statement is false.

I know people who joined the Church before 1978 who were deeply offended by the priesthood ban and by how some of the saints explained it and sometimes acted about it. Yet in their prayers they received a higher guidance and conviction that joining the Church was the right thing to do, and remained true and faithful, some for many decades now. They were not led astray, and they were not false. They followed our leaders' counsel and example. None of them were told by the Spirit that the ban was false, and none of them were given any particular revelation about the practice and teachings. Typically the were given the reassurance to proceed in faith, that Christ would cover for them, and to keep their trust in Him and the Restored Gospel.

I think that is a good approach to take for this and any doctrine that one takes exception to; to go by the confirmation he has received to make and keep the covenants through faith in Christ, first and foremost, and treat people kindly in thought, word and deed. Mosiah 4 pretty much covers this approach. We are exhorted to believe in Christ, repentance and obedience (verses 2, 9, 10), and to watch out for sinful thoughts, words and deeds (verses 29, 30). This is the antidote for yielding to the temptation to condemn or harangue others for their beliefs.

How one reacts to false doctrine is a different discussion to whether a prophet can be the source of it.

[CV75]

Can either be really argued either way?

Please show the arguments for and against this statement:

"Black skin is not a sign of disfavour or a sign of a curse."

I can easily think of arguments in favour of that being true. Can you really support arguments for that not being true?

How about these two statements:

1949: The position of Black people should be understood in the context of the doctrine that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has a determining effect on the conditions and circumstances of mortality

2013: Black skin does not reflect actions in a premortal life

While I agree that someone could argue either for or against the "curse" or "premortal" statements in 1949 OR in 2013.

I don't see how you could argue that BOTH the 1949 statement AND the 2013 statement being true.

If you can I'd be impressed to see how you manage that.

You're talking about something entirely different. However polite and considerate they are in their 2013 language, it doesn't change the fact that the implication of their statement is that 1949 statement is false.

How one reacts to false doctrine is a different discussion to whether a prophet can be the source of it.

Black skin a curse, 2 Nephi 5:21. Foreordination concerning the particular definition and circumstances of our mortality, which is cursed and which by definition involves skin (including its color), Acts 17:26 and Jeremiah 1:5 (and certainly the Lord knows how among the nations skin color becomes a trial and tribulation for some). And whatever we might perceive to be a curse in mortality is swallowed up in the Atonement, Galatians 3:13 (while this is about the law of Moses as schoolmaster, there are many other ways the Lord schools His children in mortality that prove to be just as much a “curse” when rejected -- Alma 29:.

 

Like I say, all these things can be argued back and forth, so I’m not going to invest in that further because the point is: no shepherd before or after 1978 (or between 1949 and 2013) has led me astray, so none could have been the source of false doctrine for me. Whether implications are drawn in an infinite array of color or merely in black or white depends on how much light one has or wants to have on the subject, as well for any level of depth perception.

 

Whether one looks to the past, present or future for errors (Proverbs 30:10) or to the past, present and future for truth (D&C 93:24), is up to him. I think when the whole of what a true shepherd offers is received and utilized as the Lord intends, salvation is all that remains, so there is no sense in arguing over which of his statements are true and which are false.

 

If damnation is acting on a false belief at the exclusion or expense of acting on the saving belief in Christ, it doesn't matter what the doctrine, or source of doctrine, that either kind of belief is based in. People often act contrary to their professed belief anyway.

 

Was any latter-day prophet the source of false doctrine or doctrine that resulted in false belief, false action and subsequent damnation for someone else without the opportunity for the Lord’s intervention at some point (how would anyone know)? Would the offended presume that the prophet needs his forgiveness and that he himself doesn't need the Lord’s forgiveness for not applying the truth that was offered through that same prophet, which would have easily prevented his damnation had he only acted on it?